Manchester Grooming Scandal Gets Woke

Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, appeared on Julia Hartley Brewer’s phone-in show to talk about the report into Manchester Police’s handling of the grooming gang scandal.

Yesterday, Ms Hartley Brewer had Maggie Oliver on her show to talk about the same issue. During the course of that interview Ms Oliver made the claim that misogyny played a role in why the police failed to investigate. She further claimed that this affair somehow reflected the low conviction rates in rape cases.

Now fair enough, if she is saying these things to make the issue palatable to the wide swath of people who have been denying it, or dissembling via various distractions for the past twenty years: for fear of being branded racist(and/or Islamophobia): it is understandable. However if she genuinely believes it, then Ms Oliver is making herself part of the problem.

No issue exposes the racism of the Labour party more than child grooming. And whilst it it a truism of what is fashionably called ‘woke culture’ that referring to a teenage girl as ‘a slag’ or ‘a slut’ is indicative of misogyny, and therefore something for ‘woke feminists’ to get uppity about (did you see what I did there). It is total and utter bollocks to suggest that in 2005 any police force or social worker would have turned a blind eye, or taken the ‘blue pill’, when dealing with teenage girls being gang raped, murdered, used as collateral in drug deals, or whatever, (and yes I do use current cases as examples) for fear that they would be accused of misogyny.

For one thing Harriet Harman was the solicitor general at the time. Jacqui Smith was the home secretary. And Andy Burnham was Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office). And the DPP was Ken McDonald, friend and business associate of Cherie Blair…

And for another thing… it’s time for an intermission….

Rita, Sue and Bob Too, is a film made in 1987. It is currently certified by the BBFC as an 18. Isn’t it about time this film was given an R18 certificate?

It’s not a flippant question. It is just one more distraction we can throw into this debate. And we might as well toss it in now, as it is bound to get dragged up later (no doubt with calls for George Costigan to be placed on the sex offenders register) if this whole issue is to be turned into a daft, and hysterical feminist rewriting of the past, which will inevitably occur if we start down the path in search of misogyny.

And no, I am not suggesting Rita, Sue and Bob Too should be banned. It’s a very funny and much loved film. What I am saying is everyone knows this is a complex issue. Mixing as it does race, sex, politics, and policing…. and, (but whisper this), family policy.

During the course of the interview with Ms Hartley-Brewer, Mr Burnham brought up the comments by, then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who in October 2018 tweeted…

“ These sick Asian paedophiles are finally facing justice. I want to commend the bravery of the victims. For too long, they were ignored. Not on my watch. There will be no no-go areas”

…in response to the conviction of twenty men for offences against fifteen girls in Huddersfield.

Leave aside my bugbear, of when people born in Europe stop being Asian… and instead let’s have a look at the reaction: Sajid Javid lambasted for ‘Asian paedophiles’ tweet

“The Labour MP David Lammy said: “Sajid Javid has brought a great office of state into disrepute. By singling out ‘Asians’ he not only panders to the far right but increases the risk of violence and abuse against minorities across the country.

“Whatever the underlying motives of the offenders involved, paedophilia is an abhorrent crime that affects all communities. It does no service to the victims of this evil to pin the blame on any one group.”

Ignore Mr Lammy’s brainless race baiting, and just make a mental note of ‘all communities’… because it wasn’t ‘all communities’. If Anna Hall, had made her documentary about any other ‘community’ there wouldn’t have been a row. Indeed Channel 4 made a series of documentaries about life in Northern towns around this time, which hinted at this subject and there was no uproar.

“Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said: “These are horrific crimes. As the judge said, many of these girls will never recover from the abuse they have suffered. Falling support for survivors is inexcusable. Attempts by authorities and now it seems the government to attribute these crimes to one ethnic group does nothing to support these vulnerable women in the way of social services, mental health services or the resources needed by the police to bring all sexual predators to justice.

“The only universal facts are that the scale of sexual abuse in this country is staggering, the needs of these vulnerable women and girls are repeatedly ignored and this government is simply not doing enough to combat it.”

Right so rather than just say “good they are locked up”. Ms Abbott does the Maggie Oliver distraction technique of blaming the patriarchy for misogyny. Ignoring, (but then everyone does), that teenage boys were also targeted by these gangs, as were Sikh girls (sometimes apparently for ‘other’ reasons). And that is before you get into the issue of the Children’s Act, the fact that many of those caught up in this were not in care or from poor backgrounds, teenage sexuality, media messaging, and a whole host of factors. Unless Ms Abbott is proposing to introduce some kind of Mikado or Measure for Measure legislation to enforce her feminist nunnery, which (not unlike the Lady Nugees Brexit position) she would immediately repeal on the grounds that it was restrictive of the rights of women… (ignore the boys)… and then there is the law on the age of consent (which the Labour government scampered around with weasel words)

But…

All of which misses the bleeding obvious point, that Sajid Javid isn’t targeting an ‘ethnic group’, he is pointing out that twenty men have been convicted for offences which occurred between 2004–2011 when the Labour party, and the liberal left, were actively suppressing anyone from talking about, or even suggesting, offenders from that ‘ethnic group’ were involved: and branding anyone who said differently, as a racist (and/or Islamophobic). And not only suppressing speech but messing about with the law: changes that exacerbated the problems.

Mr Lammy and Ms Abbott (who I am not citing for any reason other than they are the first two quoted in that Guardian article) are still actively suppressing the issue: using the same arguments, and the same inflammatory race hustling: in some weird attempt to gaslight people into believing that only Tommy Robinson (whom by ‘woke law’ we must call Stephen Yaxley Lennon) has noticed the hundreds of convictions, for similar offences, by persons of a similar ‘ethnic group’ in the time since the Andrew Norfolk revelations.

Oh and apparently Mr Lammy and Ms Abbott haven’t noticed that a Labour council was been put into special measures, Labour have lost three general elections, and at the last election they lost a large number of seats some of which were directly linked to these scandals.

As for their thesis that talking about that ‘ethnic group’ of offenders fuels the far right…. might it be too bold to point out that since the Jay and Casey reports, despite the paranoid fantasies of the left, the far right has declined. And UKIP, who directly sought to exploit the issue have imploded.

Which brings us back to the Andy Burnham interview.

Not only does he cite Sajid Javid (a brave thing to do in the current Labour party), but both he and Ms Hartley-Brewer get involved in the what-a-boutery dance of ‘of course the vast majority of offenders are white, and no one is saying all men of Pakistani Muslim backgrounds,’ in a desperate, and pointless attempt (because for even daring to speak about the issue you will be called a racist(and/or Islamophobic)) not to be called a racist (and/or Islamophobic).

Now there is a thing called logic. It works like this. You take one fact, add another fact, and another, until you build a case. You then take other facts to test the case.

So let’s try. If in 2020 people are still having to go through this elaborate dance to prove they are not racist, would it be reasonable to assert that the police were reluctant to pursue these cases in 2005 for fear of being accused of racism (and/or Islamophobia)?

And if you agree with that hypothesis, might not the use of ‘misogynistic’ language such as ‘sluts’ and ‘slags’ be a response to their inability to do anything? Compounded by the frustration of not being able to do anything on numerous occasions. (Isn’t that the purpose of dismissive language?) I am not seeking to dismiss Maggie Oliver, or her charity work, but she isn’t in the police force anymore. Apparently because she wouldn’t follow the rules. And yes we all like a rebel. But equally you have to pay the bills, and if following the rules pays the bills, you have to follow the rules.

Never mind that the rules make no sense.

And when you have picked your way through all of that, for God’s sake don’t mention drugs….